A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ

July 8, 2008

September 14 2008

July 8, 2008

The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, July 8, 2008 at 7:30 pm in the Brielle Borough Hall, 601 Union Lane. After a moment of silent prayer and a salute to the flag, roll call was taken:

Present- Susan S. Brady, James Harman, Thomas Heavey, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, John Visceglia, Terre Vitale

Absent- Mayor Thomas B. Nicol, Councilman Frank A. Garruzzo, Tim Sigler (Note: The Recording Secretary told the audience that the Mayor and Councilman were not present tonight due to the nature of the main hearing-they are not eligible to hear a Use Variance application)

Also present were Ken Fitzsimmons, Board Attorney, Alan Hilla,Jr. of Birdsall Engineering and Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary. There were approximately 30 people in the audience.

Chairperson Brady then called the meeting to order and declared a quorum. She announced that, in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice of this Body's meeting had been sent to the official newspapers of the Board fixing the time and place of all hearings.

The Minutes of the June 10, 2008 meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Heavey, all aye, no nays.


Two notices were received from the NJ D.E.P.: 1) Block 59, Lot 12 & 12.01, Peter Wegener, 10 Crescent Drive, to extend the existing pier & install a new boat lift: 2) Block 100, Lot 9.02 & 9.03, Bruce Zipf, 405 Osprey Point Drive, to legalize the existing dock along with modification to non-polluting materials.

Letter from King, Kitrick & Jackson, LLC re: Hearing for Omnipoint Communications and response from Recording Secretary.


The Board considered the approval of a Resolution for a variance for Block 60, Lot 8, 310 Green Avenue, owned by Twenty-Three Crescent, LLC. As there were no recommendations or changes to the draft Resolution, the following was presented for approval:

"WHEREAS, Twenty-Three Crescent, LLC (the"Applicant"), having a mailing address of 4 Crescent Drive, Brielle, N.J. 08730, has applied to the Brielle Planning Board (the"Board") for bulk variances pursuant to N.J.S.A.40:55D-70 (c); and

WHEREAS, proof of service as required by law upon appropriate property owners and governmental bodies has been furnished and determined to be in proper order; and

WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 10, 2008 in the Borough Hall, at which time testimony and exhibits were presented on behalf of the applicant and all interested parties having been heard; and

WHEREAS, the Board makes the following factual findings and findings of law:

1. This property is designated as Block60, Lot 8 on the municipal tax map.
2. The property is located in theR-3 zone.
3. Applicant proposes to raise an existing single-family residential dwelling on the property and rehabilitate an existing one-car detached garage.
4. The following variances had been applied for:


Lot Size 11,250sq.ft. 4,718sq.ft.

Lot Width 75 feet 65.80 feet

Lot Depth 125 feet 68.42 feet

Front Set back 30 feet 24.23 feet

Rear Set back 35 feet 16.79 feet

Lot Coverage 20% maximum 24.1%

Side Yard 5 feet 2.0 feet

Rear Yard 5 feet .26 feet
(accessory use)

Location of 5 feet from 3.0 feet
Driveways adjacent property

5. Zoning Officer Alan P. Hilla, Jr. prepared a report to the applicant dated April 7, 2008. The Board adopts the findings in that report and incorporates that document in this Resolution by reference.
6. The following exhibits were marked into evidence:
A-1.....Sheet 1 of 2- plans prepared by Christopher Rice, Architect, dated March 26, 2008.
A-2 Sheet 2 of 2 architectural plans
A-3 Colored rendering of front elevation.

7.Steven Hegna testified that he is the sole member of Twenty-Three Crescent, LLC, which has owned this property for approximately seven years. The house has been maintained as a rental property. It is adjacent to a single-family residential dwelling owned and occupied by Mr. Hegna.

The witness testified that he is constructing this home as his mother's residence. He explained that he acquired his home in 1992 and later purchased this property.

8. Christoper Rice, A.I.A., provided expert testimony on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the properties on each side of this lot are improved with single-family residential dwellings, and there is no potential to enlarge this lot. Referring to the exhibits, Mr. Rice testified that the existing home will be raised and replaced by the dwelling depicted in A-1, A-2 and A-3. The proposed house has an approximate first floor area of 900 square feet and second floor area of 700 square feet. Mr. Rice stated that the home was designed to eliminate certain existing variances and respect neighborhood conditions. The existing garage is to be rehabilitated. Its dimensions are 10.5 feet x 18.5 feet. The maximum height of the refurbished garage will be 16 feet. The plans originally proposed to maintain the garage in its existing location, which is in violation of required 5-foot side and rear yard set back distances. Inresponse to questions from Board members, the applicant agreed that the garage would be moved so that it would be set back at least 5feet from the side and rear lot lines.

The witness noted that the allowable building envelope, shown on A-1, would not permit the construction of the residential dwelling. He concluded that the proposed structure would be a substantial aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood, and noted that several variances were eliminated by the new plans.

9. Jeff DeMuro, a resident of 13 Crescent Drive, testified in support of this development application. He stated that the refurbished garage would be located next to two other garages on neighboring properties and the structure would not impair light and air to these neighboring properties.

10. No objectors appeared in opposition to this development application.

11. The Board finds and determines that:

(a) The proposed front yard set back distance is the same as the existing set back distance. The set back is approximately the same as the property to the immediate north of this lot.
(b) The rear set back has been increased from 5.54 feet to 16.9 feet.
(c) The relocation of the one car garage will eliminate the side and rear set back variance conditions now existing on the property.
(d) The proposed home provides lot coverage of approximately 20%. The excess lot coverage (4.1%) results from the retention of the existing garage on the site.
(e) The proposed improvements will provide a substantial aesthetic improvement to this site and will have a positive impact upon neighboring properties.
(f) The proposed excess lot coverage (4.1%) results, in part, because this lot has an area of approximately 42% of the minimum lot area required in this zone. This exceptionally small lot makes it difficult to construct a usable home conforming with the maximum lot coverage restriction.
(g) The proposed new single-family residential dwelling and refurbished garage provide a desirable visual environment and maintain adequate light, air and open space to this site and adjacent properties.
(h) The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan of the municipality.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brielle Planning Board on this 8th day of July, 2008, that the decision of the Board at its meeting of June 10, 2008 be memorialized and that this application be approved subject to the following conditions:

1.Applicant shall apply for and receive approvals from all other municipal, county, state and federal agencies having regulatory jurisdiction over this development application.
2. Applicant shall pay all real property taxes through and including the calendar quarter of the date of this Resolution.
3. Applicant shall file all required performance bonds, maintenance guarantees and post all applicable engineering and inspection fees.
4. The maximum size of the refurbished garage shall be 10.5 feet x 18.5 feet and the maximum height of the garage shall be 16 feet.
5. This development approval shall be null and void unless applicants commence construction of the proposed improvements within three years of the date of this Resolution.
6. Certified copies of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the applicant, Borough Construction Official, Zoning Officer and all other parties in interest."

A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mrs. Vitale, seconded by Mr. Harman and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Susan S. Brady, James Harman, Thomas Heavey, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, John Visceglia, Terre Vitale

Noes: None
Ineligible to Vote: Thomas Condon


The Board then turned to the application for variance relief for Block 107.02, Lot 21, 1002 Cedar Lane, owned by Thomas V. Campo & Karen J. Kennedy to allow construction of a rear addition, front porch addition & second story addition to an existing single-family home. Minimum Lot Width (corner)-125 feet required, 93 feet existing. Minimum Front Yard Setback (Cedar Lane)-40 feet required, 2.33 feet proposed (to porch). Minimum Rear Yard Set back-40 feet required, 19.5 feet proposed. Pool Set back-40 feet required (from Sunset Drive ROW), 23 feet existing.

The fee of $400 was paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners as well as the newspaper were properly notified with the exception of notification to Cablevision which was sent to the wrong address. Mr. Fitzsimmons suggested hearing this application and having the applicant again notify Cablevision; the final vote will not be taken until the August meeting at which time, if there are no objections, a Resolution can also be addressed. The Board was agreeable to this. Before this hearing started, however, James Harman stepped off the dais as he is a property owner within 200 feet.

At this time Karen Kennedy & Anthony Bush, Jr. came forward and were sworn in. Mr.Bush is a licensed architect in N.J. and has an office in Red Bank; he was accepted as an expert witness. Mr. Fitzsimmons had a question on the data chart and the application, there was a difference. Mr. Bush agreed but said the letter of March 8 from Mr. Hilla uses the correct figure. Mr. Hilla said that both measurements are to the porch, but this area is not even and there are two figures; he used the shorter figure which is 28.3. Also, the lot depth is 93 feet and the chart says 96.6, the depth of 93 feet is measured from the front set back. There was also confusion on pool location but all agreed the figures may not agree due to the odd shape of the lot.

Mr.Bush then proceeded with his testimony and said this is an irregular shaped lot and they wish to add a second floor and rear addition along with a front porch which will be a very strong aesthetic feature. This is a ranch and needs to be updated to 2008; they thought about taking it down but decided to renovate and add the second story. The front set back violation is due to the new front porch and he referred to sheet A-3 of the plans which shows the front elevation. The small bump-out in the back is basically going to be a mudroom and there will be access from the garage; the home, when finished, will have a more seashore colonial look.

Mr.Fitzsimmons noted that there is no change in the footprint other than the front porch and Mr. Bush said this is correct. He also told the Board the shaded area on the plan will be a grape arbor which will dress up the side of the house and give shading; it will not interfere with the rear yard set back. The third floor will only be attic storage with walk-upstairs. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if this can be stipulated and Mr. Bush said absolutely; he also commented that there will be storage space over the garage.

Mr. Heavey wanted confirmation that the only item that will increase the footprint will be in the front and Mr. Bush said yes, in the back there will not be anymore of an encroachment than what is existing. Mr. Hilla noted that the application has the benefit of Riverview Drive as the reference point for height, which is the highest of the two roads; Mr. Bush said they are trying to keep this home in character in regards to roof ines. Mrs. Brady asked about the pool and Mr. Bush said they are not going to touch this, it is staying as is.

Mr. Sarnasi asked how much more roof area will there be and Mr. Bush said it will be the same, just a different pitch; dormers will add to this. There are gables on the existing roof and they will control grading. Mr. Sarnasi said he was concerned with drainage and asked how the water will drain; Mr. Bush said they can do it so it runs parallel to the house to the street and not to the neighbors. Mr. Visceglia asked about a bump-out in the front and is that living space. Mr. Bush said this is a bump out in the vestibule (it is now a guestroom) and they are going to work the porch around this.

As there were no further Board questions, the meeting was opened to the public; there was no response so that portion was closed. Mrs.Brady noted a letter from the Walshes, who apparently live across the street, approving of this variance application.

The Board then went into discussion-Mr. Sarnasi commented that this is really nice looking and the house was kept in the center of the lot, he did not see a line-of-site problem and felt this will be an asset. Mr. Bush agreed and said they realized that bumping out too much would not be good. Mr. Visceglia asked if the lot were 125 feet as required, would they still need variances and Mr. Bush said yes as they are being held to three front yard set backs due to the shape of the lot on the corner, they thought going out the front was the way to go with this lot. Mr. Visceglia asked about shortening the porch from 10 feet to 6 to 8 feet but Mr. Bush said this is not enough room when you put chairs out, along with the French doors they are planning.

Mr. Heavey was concerned about the site triangle but did not see a problem and felt the "C" variance criteria had been met. Mr. Langenberger and Mr. Condon did not have a problem with the application and Mrs. Vitale thought it will be a good addition to the neighborhood.

The hearing was then carried to the August meeting and a full vote will be taken at that time along with the consideration of a Resolution for approval, this due to the problem with the one certified mail notice.


The Board then turned to the continuation of an application for a Minor Site Plan/Use Variance for Block 110, Lot 2, known as 1023 Highway 70, owned by Alpha Property Management, LLC (Applicant-Omnipoint Communications, Inc.) to allow the construction of a 100 foot telecommunications Monopole, disguised as a flag pole, and ground level equipment on a 4'x20' concrete pad, all to be located at the south western corner of the property. Before starting this hearing, Mr. Heavey recused himself from the dais and sitting for this application.

Mr. Warren Stillwell, Esq. Came before the Board on behalf of the applicant, Omnipoint Communications. He had brought the Radio Frequency Engineer this evening to testify, as well as Mr. Colagrande, Engineer, who was present at the last hearing. He also referenced a letter to the Board, dated 6/30/08 reciting the exhibits that have been presented. Mrs. Brady said the Board had not received this letter, as did Mrs. Brisben, Recording Secretary-the letter had been sent to Mr. Fitzsimmons. Mr. Stillwell also had submitted new parking plans, which Mrs. Brisben had received and distributed to the Board; he explained that the first sheet shows the parking as it exists and sheet 2&3 are separate considerations of what can be designed, he realized these plans came in too late for an engineering review by Mr. Hilla, who agreed.

Mr. Fitzsimmons noted that Exhibits A-1 through A-4 had been marked at the hearings. Exhibits A-5 through A-9 have not and Mr. Stillwell agreed but said these items have been submitted to the Board. At this time Mr. Fitzsimmons told the Board that Exhibit A-5 is the application with the Zoning Memorandum, A-6 is the site plan, A-7 are 10 photos of the site, A-8 is a topographic plan and A-9 is the zoning permit denial. There were no objections so these items were marked as above.

Mr. Stillwell said they can continue with questions to Mr. Colagrande, their engineer. Mrs. Brady said this will be open to residents only, no attorneys, which is fair as the residents should get a chance to ask questions. Dan Healey of River Road, Wall asked if there were any photos of this flagpole monopole and Mr. Colagrande said he did not have samples and the Planner will present this portion. Mr. Healey then asked what is the benefit to the people of Brielle and Wall and Mr. Colagrande again said the Planner will address this, as well as the Radio Frequency Engineer here this evening. Mr. Healey asked if it was cheaper to do this in this location and Mr. Colagrande said he did not think Omnipoint makes a decision on "cheap" but the area that will work. Mr. Healey asked if they could show points to prove that there are better sites will that be addressed and Mr. Colagrande said that will be addressed later. Mr. Healey asked if the revised plans move the pole closer to the houses in Wall and Mr. Colagrande said yes, there was a concern of the proximity to the property line and it makes more sense to move this farther into the property. Mr. Stillwell commented that it will also help eliminate 2 variances. Mr. Healey asked if the pole fell, is there anything that says it has to fall in the Alpha-Omega property and Mr. Colagrande said he had no reference on this.

The next person to come forward was Karen Barbagelata of Wall Township and she had a question o fExhibit A-10, the new parking plan. Mr. Colagrande said It has been yet been submitted as an Exhibit and Mr. Stillwell said they are waiting for the engineer's report. Mrs. Barbagelata said the numbers do not add up on the pages of the parking plan and Mr. Colagrande agreed as there is a typographical error. She asked if this plan will be reviewed and the answer was yes, the Board engineer will do a report. There are some errors on it and they will be looked into.

Michael Carroll of Wall Township came forward with some pictures of a monopole located at the Neptune Township Police Department and wanted to know if this is what this pole will look like, this pole is 100 feet tall (Mr. Carroll said he had asked a police officer there who said it was 100 feet tall). Mr. Fitzsimmons said the best picture can be marked as Exhibit 0-1 for identification. Mr. Carroll also wanted clarification of the barracks that will be around the pole and Mr. Colagrande corrected him, saying it is a compound, not barracks. He looked at the photo but couldn't verify the height and size of the pole and noted that this pole has antennas mid-way with whip antennas, a different type of look. Mr. Carroll asked if the antennas were taken off, will this look like this picture and Mr. Colagrande said yes, it is consistent with what they plan, however, their pole will be white. Mr. Carroll asked Mr. Colagrande if this would bother him if it were by where he lived and the answer was no, it would not. He said there is one in his town and it has not affected him. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked Mr. Carroll if he would like his exhibit moved into evidence and the answer was yes. Mr.S tillwell had no objection as long as it is considered in context.

Mr. Reilly of Wall Township asked if this pole will be illuminated and Mr. Colagrande said yes, it will be at night and the Radio Frequency Engineer can discuss details of height. Mr. Reilly asked what happens when the tree levels get higher than the pole and Mr. Colagrande could not testify to this, but it is his understanding that in New Jersey very few trees grow to 100 feet-the highest maybe 70 feet. Also, there are no trees close to this site.

Next to come forward was Guy Barbagelata of Fox Lane in Wall who said the site itself hasd efficiencies and he wanted to know if that was going to be addressed; Mr. Colagrande said he did not address any of those issues. Mr. Barbagelata asked how tall is the building and the answer was about 30 feet, the warehouse part is not as tall as the other side. Mr.Barbagelata then spoke of the curb ending before the State Highway line and Mr. Colagrande put Exhibit A-2 on the easel - Mr.Barbagelata showed the corner of Old Bridge Road, the curb extends past the driveway and he wanted to know if this will be corrected. Mr. Colagrande said no, they were not asked to do that. Mr. Barbagelata asked if they had taken into account the Borough codes on driveways and Mr. Colagrande said they did not address any driveway issues. Mr. Barbagelata asked about drainage and run off issues and Mr. Colagrande said this will not have any impact on this and he did not address it.

Mr.Langenberger asked if Mr. Colagrande knew what the height was of the building next door and the answer was no.

Mr. Joe Martin of Fox Lane then came forward and questioned the size of this flag, 15 feet x 25 feet, will there be any noise from this as it will be flying 24 hours a day. Mr. Colagrande did not know of any requirements on this. Mr. Martin then asked about the back up battery for emergencies and if there were any decibel studies done on this. Mr.Colagrande said the D.E.P. noise regulations do not apply to emergency generators.

Mr. Michael Ping of 2702 Old Bridge Road, Wall, then came forward and asked if Mr. Colagrande has familiarized himself with Brielle and the 50 foot buffer requirements before submitting this application and Mr. Ping was told the 50 foot buffer requirement does not exist here, it is a pre-existing condition on this lot. Mr. Fitzsimmons explained that they have to deal with existing conditions. Mr. Ping asked about landscaping and Mr. Fitzsimmons said the new parking plan will be reviewed by the Board Engineer and these issues will be considered at a later time.

Mrs. Brady asked about the flagpole having two sets of antennas and possible a third and asked for clarification. Mr. Colagrande said the pole contains spaces for 3 sets of antennas. Omnipoint will take the top two and, in the future, a third area may be leased; at that time a new site plan will be submitted to this Board and approval will need to be granted. Mrs. Brady commented that this would not affect this plan and Mr. Colagrande said she was correct.

Mrs. Brady told the audience the Board had received a letter from Wall Township stating they wanted time to present their side and asked Mr. Fitzsimmons if their attorneys could hold on any questions till then. Mr. Fitzsimmons said if they have questions they can ask now and do not have to wait; Mrs. Brady just wanted to get that clear.

Going back to residents input, Dan Udovic of Wall Township came forward, he told the Board he is a resident and also an engineer; he said there are different versions of towers and referenced "RevG"; Mr. Colagrande said the manufacturer will design this pole. Mr. Udovic asked if ice falls will there be a buffer zone and Mr. Colagrande said he did not know of any codes on this and has never come across it.

Mr. Michael Elward, an attorney for Wall Township, came forward and asked further about "RevG"; Mr. Colagrande said he did not think that was adopted, the IBC code is on a version of 222 & RevF, however, he is not a structural engineer. Mr. Elward asked if the flag will make some noise and Mr. Colagrande agreed it would.

Mrs. Brady then closed the public portion for this expert witness and asked that the hearing go on to the next testimony of the Radio Frequency Engineer. Mr. Dominic Villecco came forward and told the Board he has a BS degree in Electrical Engineering and has been in the wireless industry for 27 years; he has testified before numerous Boards in NJ and has also appeared in Federal Court as an expert in wireless design. The Board accepted him as an expert witness.

He said that Omnipoint is licensed by the FCC and their PCS License works in a 1900 mega hertz range which allows them to provide wireless services to Monmouth County. They provide traditional wireless services, data and text services as well as 911 service. Omnipoint technology uses the same frequencies over and over, roughly every 7 seconds and they only have so many channels so they re-use them throughout the State. The downlink is having a site to the subscribers and the uplink is back up to the site from users. This is a two-way system, one down and one up, the mobile unit is transmitting up and the pole is transmitting down which makes a balance between the two. They try to keep the balance by the antenna and uses, a hand unit Is a weak link.

In the 1980s cellular licenses were given out by the FCC for vehicular services, truck mounted uses. Most units today do no teven have antennas, so there is a big difference from the 1980s to now. From the 1980s to now there are so many different devices, blackberries, texting, pictures, etc. and they are used all over. Statistics show people are getting rid of their land- line phones, too.

Omnipoint came into all this in the1990s and Mr. Villecco asked that his display be marked as Exhibit A-10 for identification, it shows the existing sites in the area (this was prepared by his office) and is a base map computer reduction of the area which shows Brielle in the center. The blue dot is the proposed location and the red dots are existing sites; he noted that the site at Route 70 and 34 is a 117 foot monopole, at 800 Ashley Avenue antennas are up 162 feet, 416 New York Avenue in Point Pleasant Beach they are 100 feet, Lakewood Road in Point Pleasant at 100 feet, Morris Avenue in Brick at 106 feet and Burnt Tavern Road in Brick at 117 feet. They were originally proposed on highway corridors and, as transcribers changed, there was a need for more sites for capacity so they starting going from hill tops and tall towers. As the numbers grew and the need grew, the need for more sites grew, and they are now going into residential corridors to get usage in all areas.

He then put a blue and green overlay over his display, the outer boundary areas are green and are-84DBM; anything that blocks the signal will cause you to lose that signal, getting in your car can drop power. The blue hue is-76DBM and is the standard that Omnipoint uses, which takes into account indoor uses; he explained that the DBM levels refer to strength.

Mr. Villecco pointed to the center of Exhibit A-10 and said the real goal is to get service in this area, this is a commercial strip here and there is a square mile gap here along Route 70, Riverview Drive, Ramshorn Drive, Wall and some parts of Brick that now have this gap. A Radio Frequency Engineer will look at the gap area, study and see what level of service is there and develop a target area to locate a new site. He looks for existing structures and noted in this case there are no existing structures tall enough to be suitable to solve this problem, so there is a need to find a site.

Mr. Stillwell asked how they were able to do this overlay and Mr. Villecco explained they use rhythms of usage and antennas and other information. Also taken into consideration is the terrain and land use data; this is all used to come up with levels used. Omnipoint has also done some testing in this area and comes pretty close to Mr. Villecco's data information. Mr.Stillwell asked about accuracy and Mr. Villecco said they are usually in the high 90% for accuracy. The data from the field can be matched to what the predictions are and can get fairly close to signals that are used in this area. Poles are expensive to build so they need the right location and also they need to be able to do the job.

Mr. Stillwell asked if this is surrounded by other sites and the answer was yes, the coverage goal is to fill the gap. He explained that these sites have to provide a level of service from site to site, you can even hand off from site to site in your home as you walk around it. The center of the exhibit shows natural features and he showed where the river was; this pole also cannot be too close to another pole and the exhibit shows this site is in the center of other locations and will fill this gap. If you are on the fringes of a site and there is no dominant server, there is a chance you may lose your call.

The Board had marked, as Exhibit A-11, another map and overlay showing the existing sites and their range, again in blue &green. Mr. Visceglia asked about the areas that are white and Mr. Villecco said these areas are maybe-85 or- 86, there are trees, etc. here and less coverage, there is lots of density or rolling terrain which is blocking usage and there may be problems in making a call here. Further away from the blue and green is less coverage. The difference with this exhibit is that this one shows the coverage range there will be if this site is approved.

Mr. Villecco said the pole has to be at a height of 100 feet as it has to be above any obstructions; 100 feet gets them past trees and they are able to get back to customers, this will help southern Brielle but he admitted there will be still be a problem in the hills of Brielle butt this will fill in the need in the area. Mr. Stillwell asked if there were any other way to do this and Mr. Villecco said no, they need to get antennas up to do this. There will be no interference with televisions, radios, etc, they do not interact with other frequencies, only with another carrier. Mr. Langenberger asked if any competitors share this frequency and Mr. Villecco said AT&T uses this, Verizon has a different technology, there are different acronyms for these uses. Mr. Langenberger asked if he was aware if AT&T has a cell tower in this area and Mr. Villecco said he was not aware of any. Mr. Langenberger asked if they share sites with AT&T and answer was yes, around the United States; Mr. Langenberger then asked if they could rent a space from AT&T and Mr. Villecco said T-Mobile (Omnipoint) has an agreement with AT&T to share if the opportunity comes along. Mr. Langenberger asked if T-Mobile has actually searched for an AT&T tower in this area and, if so, would they pursue an agreement. Mr.Villecco said there is no other structure in this area but if they can, they will.

Mr. Sarnasi wanted to go back to Exhibit A-10 and was wondering if another area here could be used that is not by residences. Mr. Villecco said it was all residential here but Mr. Sarnasi felt that closer to the Dunkin Donuts building would be farther away from the homes; Mr. Villecco could not see any difference. Mr. Sarnasi said if the tower is shifted, can this be done on the other side of the Alpha-Omega building? He also asked about getting closer to the gas station which is even farther away from homes. Mr. Villecco said that, from a radio frequency standpoint, it would be the same.

Mr. Vitale asked about the radius in coverage, she thought it was supposed to be about a 6 mile radius, but Mr. Villecco said no, this usually goes one mile to one and a half miles radius and the terrain also has to be taken into account- he could see only about one mile coverage here.

Mr. Visceglia asked about antennas on the Brielle Water Tower but Mr. Langenberger said there are already antennas there and there is no more ground space for another building pad; this area is full. Mr. Villecco said that location would not fill this gap they are looking to close. Mr. Langenberger asked about a location at Crystal Point across the river and Mr. Villecco said they looked at that location and the problem is that its about ½ mile away which still left an area by Riverview Drive in Brielle uncovered, this site works for all 4 towns.

Mr. Hilla wanted to know what the reality was for a third set of antennas being leased at this location and Mr. Villecco said he thought it would be used but it depends on what another carrier does-there is limited space inside this pole as well as outside. Mr. Visceglia asked if it is possible to increase frequencies and Mr. Villecco said these will run at full, maximum power.

At this time the Board took a 5 minute recess, it was 9:40 p.m. The Board then reconvened at 9:45p.m. and Mrs.Brady told the audience they had about 15 minutes to ask questions as she was opening this up to the public. Mr. Dan Healey of 2644 River Road came forward and asked if the map was just for T-Mobile coverage and Mr. Villecco said yes. He asked if they had one that showed other providers and Mr. Villecco said that is not part of this application and does not impact T-Mobile subscribers. Mr. Healey asked if their license requires they provide coverage and Mr. Villeceo said no, there is a reference in the rules that says if adequate coverage is not given, there may be problems; he said one can choose what carrier they want, the FCC gave different frequencies to different companies to create this choice. Mr. Healey asked if Omnipoint was late in coming here and Mr. Villecco said the way the government gave frequencies, it is not anyone's fault. Mr. Healey asked if the location were at a higher elevation would the pole still have to be at 100 feet and Mr. Villecco said no, a smaller pole can be created if it can get the heigh tneeded. Mr. Healey asked if these maps are shown to customers or only at applications and Mr. Villecco said they have been shown to customers and this can also be found on their website.

Mr. Michael Elward, attorney for Wall Twp., then came forward and exhibits A-10 and A-11 and wanted clarification that they are the existing coverage and proposed coverage; Mr. Villecco said that is what he testified to, showing what the gap is. Mr. Elward then questioned the methods done to create these exhibits and Mr. Villecco said there is a computer program in his office. Mr. Elward asked if they could get a copy of it and the answer was yes. Mr. Elward offered that if the input in the computer is not accurate then Exhibits A-10 andA-11 are not accurate; Mr. Villecco said they tested these configurations and they proved accurate. Mr. Stillwell said that Wall's engineer can contact Mr. Villecco and discuss this and Mr.Langenberger told Mr. Elward, and the audience, that the Board has accepted Mr. Villecco as an expert witness. Mr. Fitzsimmons agreed and said Omnipoint has identified their expert and agreed with Mr. Stillwell that Mr. Elward should get his expert and look at this program and let this engineer decide; he did not want to take this time this evening to argue this. If this software is used in this business and if this is acceptable then, as Mr. Langenberger said, the Board has accepted him as an expert.

Mrs. Brady told the audience that, once again, 9-10 minutes has been used up for bickering among professionals and she had a problem with this as the residents should have time to ask questions. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if the exhibits should be moved into evidence but Mr. Elward objected as the math was not supplied. Mrs. Brisben suggested leaving the exhibits with her so the public can come in to look them, if desired. As this hearing was going to be over the 120 day time allotted for approval, as per the Municipal Land Use Law, Mr. Stillwell said they will waive this time approval to September 30th. As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Condon, seconded by Mrs. Vitale and unanimously approved, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00pm.

Karen. S. Brisben, Recording Secretary